|
|
|
|
|
by jacquesm
1518 days ago
|
|
This goes for all infrastructure. Destroying it is much easier than making it. But that 'cheap' submarine won't be as cheap as you think it is and it still has to do it undetected and it has to achieve some kind of objective. It also immediately gets two countries pissed off at you, one of which is in NATO and may well see an attack on its infrastructure as an overt act of war. So you better think this over long and hard before sending your cheap submarine down there. Personally I'd be much more concerned about the kind of damage marine life, fishing and cargo ships would do to that cable and how to armor against that. Probably by the time you've taken all that into account you have also defended against that sub. And finally, the same thing of course goes for all of those other undersea cables, communications ones for instance. |
|
Such attacks can even disable half a country grid just due to the big drop in frequency of the whole grid, spark enormous outrage and can also be both really damaging and really quick to fix. Life it's complicated, where no one can easy see anything can happen, design things to avoid potential attack surface is a good way to protect themselves.
We do not normally have strokes, but we put defibrillators everywhere for a reason, we do not have much car accidents but we design cars to make us survive important ones etc. A critical infra like an energy grid... Oh, sure we in the west are equally dependent on foreign supply chains for oil, uranium etc but we stockpile them a bit, months for oil, an year or two for uranium, it's not the same of electricity in a grid...
Just see how many issues are there due to some supply chain issues in south China or the "Ever given" crisis in Suez. We are already hyper-vulnerable planning even bigger vulnerabilities for the future it does not sound that smart to me.